So You Want To Own a Gun (Part Four)

The difference in aim and impact points between a cold and hot bore may be enough for a clean miss, or it may be enough to take the animal humanely with a minimum of suffering. Typically, big game hunters and many kinds of small game hunters will want to prepare for cold-bore zero. Certain kinds of hunters who will see relatively intense and frequent shooting, however — for example, prairie dogs hunters — may want to perfect their hot-bore zero. Adjust your zero to your kind of hunting.

The Right Tool for the Job

Another consideration for hunters is the selection of the right caliber and cartridge for the species they seek and the style of hunting they will pursue. Most small game in North America (rabbits, squirrels, etc.) are taken with rimfire rifles or shotguns, using small bullets at comparatively low velocities and energy levels to preserve the meat of these small, thin-skinned animals. Legally, there may be no legal restriction on using a 7mm Remington Magnum to harvest a ground squirrel, but you’d be lucky to find anything beyond a pink mist and floating puffs of fur. My recommendation is to talk to experienced hunters or guides in your area to see what they suggest about the kind of hunting you want to do, including not just species, but also terrain. A scoped 270 bolt-action rifle may be great for eastern deer hunted in soybean fields, but a quick-handling lever action .30/30 is a better choice for deer or hogs in dense brush, and neither are great choices for Alaskan big game that may look upon you as a tasty snack. Likewise, waterfowl and game bird hunting (with the exceptions of turkeys in some states) are a shotgun-only affair, sometimes with considerable and bewildering selections of shotgun chokes, shell lengths, shot sizes, and shot materials depending on the species you desire to chase.

Know Your Limitations

Almost any modern firearm that is reasonably well-maintained and firing quality factory-made ammunition is going to be capable of more mechanical accuracy than its human operator is likely to be able to wring out of it. If you are the kind of hunter that isn’t able to make it to the range frequently to keep your shooting skills sharp, they will fall away from you. You should limit yourself to shots within your “envelope of competency,” for lack of a better term. This will vary wildly from shooter to shooter. For individual shooters, it will vary between individual weapons.

23 Comments, 9 Threads

1.
eon

Although I’ve technically never been a hunter, “varmint” shooting was a necessary chore on the farm where I grew up. And in doing it, I learned a few important things.

1. When shooting at a small target near the ground, take note of the ground. Rocks or even hard-packed soil can cause a dangerous ricochet, even after the bullet has passed through the target. (Modern varmint rounds are mostly high-velocity .22 centerfires to alleviate this problem via bullet fragmentation on impact. Well, that’s the theory, anyway.)

2. When hunting from a stand, please use a pair of binoculars to “glass” the area for game, not your rifle’s telescopic sight! I’ve lost count of the number of times I saw deer hunters (with scoped shotguns firing slug loads) doing that trick around the old homestead, and cringed internally at the sight. All it takes is touching the trigger at the wrong moment and BLAM!

3. Learn to judge range accurately, if necessary by using a rangefinder, and learn the effective range of your rifle. More importantly, learn what your effective range is with that rifle and the load you will be using. A bullet begins to both lose velocity, and drop, as soon as it leaves the muzzle. and as it sheds velocity, its energy is reduced. You must know what each figure is (in feet-per-second, foot-pounds of energy, and inches below your line of sight) out to your maximum effective range. You can generally find the data for any factory load printed right on the box.

All three factors are critical. My favorite “general purpose” rifle, a Swedish Mauser in 6.5 x 55mm, fires a 139-grain bullet at 2850 FPS muzzle velocity and 2515 foot-pounds of kinetic energy- at the muzzle. If it is zeroed at 100 yards, at 200 it will be 1.2 inches below line of sight, and 23.5 inches low at 400 yards. More importantly, at 200 it will still be moving at 2290 and yielding 1615 foot-pounds of energy (about the same as a .30-30 Winchester 160-grain at the muzzle), but at 400 it will only be “doing” 1790 FPS and hitting with about 780 foot-pounds; the energy level of a .41 Remington Magnum pistol round at the muzzle.

The moral being, a shot you wouldn’t take with a .41 Magnum revolver at twenty yards for fear of crippling the animal as opposed to killing it cleanly, is one you shouldn’t take at 400 yards with this caliber of rifle for the same reason. Plus the distinct possibility that if you don’t “hold” high enough at 400, instead of hitting your target in the heart or lungs (the proper killing shot) you may “paunch” it, which is the same thing as the Old West cliche’ about a man being gut-shot. (See the movie El Dorado with John Wayne for a fairly graphic depiction of that.)

The fact is that most rifle shooters are better off not attempting shots much beyond 200 to 300 yards. Experienced target shooters, military snipers, and other such highly-skilled individuals are a different story. The best comment on this was made by the late Colonel Jeff Cooper, who was a trained Marine rifleman before he became an expert on handgun marksmanship;

Other than on the battlefield or target range, anyone who attempts a rifle shot beyond 400 yards should be required to explain, in writing and in triplicate, why it was necessary to do so.

Shooting is both a science and an art. Rifle shooting is probably the highest form of both. The challenge to do it right is what makes it enjoyable. (Well, to me, at least.) But as with all such endeavors, you, as the “artist”, have the responsibility to do it as well, and as safely, as you can.

That’s why another old saying makes sense. The one that goes, “There’s no such thing as too much practice”.

cheers

eon

PS- What’s with this “You are posting comments too quickly” thing with WordPress? This is the only comment I’ve posted so far today.

I would sharpen this very good reply, from my background, eastern populated area hunting. There is a key time, in aiming at game, in which you insert your trigger finger inside the guard. When you hear the rustle of the leaves, or sense vague motion, discipline your self, leave it laying aside the guard, away from the trigger, as you position for the shot and study the back field. The safety release is earlier, and depends on other considerations. Only when you are only certain of your target, full identification, and what lies beyond, then decide to insert. In the split second, it is better to let the game go, than to live a lifetime of regrets, due to an “accident”.

I once ate dinner, late, wet, skunked, as I overheard two hunters in the next booth, recounting their day. One said, “I didn’t see anything today, but I got off two good sound shots.” I could not swallow.

Hunting and combat involve killing, but they require different thinking.

One thing you may want to do before you hunt even a familiar location is walk the land before you hunt it. You will learn where the game lives, travels and feeds. It will also help you identify inhabited areas, traveled roads and safe locations to shoot. Just remember a high powered rifle round can travel several miles so you can meet all the requiremed for a legal shoot and still kill someone. Go camera hunting. It sharpens your stalking skills and helps you remember good locations.

Unless you are hunting because you have to do it to eat the primary reason for you being in the woods is to enjoy nature. It shouldn’t matter whether you actually come home with something. If you don’t bag anything there is always Safeway. For the most part today’s hunters are part of the game management system and are not “bringing home the bacon.”

Finally I could like to point out to Mr. Owen that he continues to be negligent on safety instruction. Every discussion of the use firearms should begin with an expostion of the rules of firearms safety, i.e,.

(1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded until shown other wise. When you hunt the only time you should load your gun is when you are actually hunting game. You should always unload you gun when cross a fence or other obstruction.

(2) Don’t point your gun at anything you do not wish to destroy.

(3) Know your target and what is beyond it.

(4) Keep your finger off the trigger until you have identified your target and checked to see if you have a clear field of fire. The gun should be on safe until just before you fire. Remember, unless you are hunting Kodiak bear or mountain lion you are not in a self defense situation. the rifle doesn’t have to be instantly ready to go.

While Mr. Owen did some of these rules (2 & 3) they need to be called out first before discussion any use of firearms and not buried in the text.

One more thing. The best time to go hunting is during the week when few people are out hunting. The weekend big game hunter is usually overeager becasue of his limited time out in the woods. Not only is he potentially dangerous his hasty shots will scare the game away.

On firearm selection: CHECK YOUR GAME LAWS! Many places in the East heavily restrict or outlaw rifle hunting; in Virginia, hunting laws forbid the use of rifles against managed game east of the Blue Ridge, where the mountainous terrain is more likely to stop misses. Many states’ hunting laws prescribe minimum calibers as well; for all the popularity of the .223 Remington/5.56 NATO, you could well be breaking the law if you go after deer with it, since most states specify calibres of 6mm/.243 or bigger.

Excellent point. Here in Ohio, we have two sections in deer season. Primitive weapon season is restricted to blackpowder rifles and bows (longbow and crossbow); rifle minimum caliber is .45, and bows must be at least 60 pounds pull weight. (It used to be 45 pounds, but there were too many cripples due to overenthusiastic, and underskilled, would-be bowhunters.)

Deer gun season is restricted to 12 gauge shotguns firing slugs (no buckshot); rifled “slug guns” are permitted, and frankly favored by Natural Resources. A two-shot plug is required in the magazine tube, for a total of three shots, and they do check at the weighing station.

Handguns are also permitted, as long as they have at least a six-inch barrel and a muzzle energy of 600 foot-pounds. .44 Magnum revolvers are the most common deer handguns, with the occasional .41 Magnum or .357 with hot loads. Single-shot pistols like the Thompson Contender are also allowed, as long as they fire pistol cartridges; no rifle rounds are permitted. Technically, specialized deer rounds like the .30 Herrett are legal, but I’ve never known anybody who used one.

Long arms, such as lever-action or self-loading carbines chambered for pistol rounds are not permitted. They are considered “rifles”, and the whole point of ODNR’s regulations is to reduce the “danger space” of deer hunting by restricting the weaponry to short effective ranges.

Personally, I think this last is a mistake. While a 240-grain .44 Magnum bullet departs the muzzle of a 20″ barreled carbine at about 1750 FPS, vs 1350 for a six-inch revolver, the blunt-nosed revolver-type bullet loses velocity much more rapidly than any spire-pointed rifle projectile, due to air resistance.

At 200 yards (assuming a 100- yard zero) the bullet will be down to 1380 FPS and be 18 inches below the line of sight. Assuming you shoot level from the standing offhand position, it will strike the ground about 400 yards away. Slightly further than the same bullet from a revolver, but not much. (That one will hit the ground at about 320 yards.)

IMHO, allowing pistol-caliber carbines would not be appreciably more dangerous downrange. They would, however, result in cleaner kills within 100 yards in the hands of less-than-expert shooters, especially if scoped. A fixed 4X would be all that it would require.

Going to a strict 60 lb pull (don’t know how they would enforce it, since most bows are adjustable) would eliminate skilled, but aging hunters, who can no longer pull the 60 lbs, and would also destroy themselves trying to target practice. My bows can be set to 60 lbs, but I certainly no longer shoot at that setting. Anyway, if you pull sixty, but can’t hold it steady for long, even with the let-off, it hardy seems as if you advanced the cause.

To tie this topic to the political realm IMO any Republican candidate for any office who justifies protecting gun rightson the basis of hunting as family heritage or the like, should be flogged. Its an ideological trap — the2nd amendment is about individual sovereignity not mere tradition.
Ive seen quite a few ads taking that over the last several years and its potentially setting up trading the fundamental right of self defense for deer season.

We may as well be those tribes in Alaska whom the govt *allows* to hunt one whale a year for their culture.

Over the past four years the idea that the Second Amendment is about individual sovereignty and the a check on the Federal government has gained currency in Libertarian and some conservative circles. While a well armed citizenry may have the ability to check the Federal government it is a secondary effect. The Founders did not want a standing Army. They saw it as costly burden and a threat to Republican government. That is why the Constitution talks about raising an Army and maintaining a Navy. A Navy cannot overthrow the government. The War of 1812 showed that we counld not rely on a militia for defense amd that a small standing Army was required to take care of the nation’s day-to-day security needs and form the cadre for the creation of a national Army in a major conflict. The role of the Second Amendment is to have a population that is familiar with firearms and can be more easily trained in the event of national emergency. Because of the Second Amendment he American draftee has been more proficient in the use of firearms the average professional soldier other armies.

James Madison’s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[81]

On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his Bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[82] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[83] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[84]

The Second Amendment was debated and modified during sessions of the House on in late August 1789. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[85]

By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[86] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[87]

The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated.[88] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[89]

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the States.

It far better to remain silent and have people think you are an idiot then open it and confirm the fact.

The Second Amendment is about placing national defense in the hands of the citizen and not a professional army. Things didn’t work out well for the “peoples army and we had build a rreal one. The militia of the early Republic became the draft. The body of the people still need to be armed so they be more capable as soldiers if called upon to defend the nation.

And just for the hell of it, try this one. The trouble with history is that there is so damned much of it. The trick is to find three or four pieces that fit your own (or the professor’s) political beleeefs, and claim that those are the only pieces, or if your audience is slightly more intelligent, the only important pieces:

The Hidden History of the Second Amendment

By Professor Carl T. Bogus
Roger Williams University School of Law
as published in the U.C. Davis Law Review

Synopsis

In his recent U.C. Davis Law Review article “The Hidden History of the Second Amendment,” Roger Williams University School of Law Professor Carl T. Bogus offers a thesis that could forever change the way Americans view the Second Amendment: James Madison wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming the militia, which were then the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.

The story begins in Richmond, Virginia in the summer of 1788. Since it had been proposed by the convention in Philadelphia two years earlier, the Constitution of the United States had been the focus of an intense struggle. By its own terms, the Constitution required ratification by at least nine states; if that were not achieved the United States would not come into being. The Federalists were working hard for ratification, but anti-Federalists were opposing them with equal vigor. Although eight states had ratified the Constitution, most of the remaining states seemed to be leaning the other way, and it was uncertain whether a ninth state would be found. The last and best hope was Virginia, where the Federalists and anti-Federalists were about equally divided.

It was with high drama, therefore, that the Virginia ratifying convention convened in Richmond in June 1788. Madison led the forces for ratification, and as its principal author, no one understood the Constitution better. Yet the opposition was equally formidable. The anti-Federalists were led by George Mason, the most intellectual of the anti-Federalists, and Patrick Henry, who was considered the greatest orator of the day.

Mason and Henry made many arguments against ratification, but one of the strategies they devised was particularly shrewd. Virginia was nearly half black, and the white population lived in constant fear of slave insurrection. The main instrument of control was the militia. So critical was the militia for slave control that, in the main, the southern states refused to commit their militia to the war against the British. The Constitution, however, would transfer the lion’s share of the power over the militia to Congress. Slavery was becoming increasingly obnoxious to the North, and southern delegates to the Philadelphia convention demanded and got an agreement, somewhat cryptically written into the Constitution, that deprived the federal government of authority to abolish slavery. Mason and Henry raised the specter of Congress using its authority over the militia to do indirectly what it could not do directly. They suggested that Congress might refuse to call forth the militia to suppress an insurrection, send southern militia to New Hampshire, orï¿½and on this they harped repeatedlyï¿½disarm the militia. For Virginia and the South, these were chilling prospects.

The Federalists prevailed, but just barely. Although Virginia ratified the Constitution, Madison limped out of the Richmond Convention. Half of Virginia was still anti-Federalist, and the anti-Federalists were determined to end Madison’s political career. Losing a bid to the United States Senate, Madison was reduced to running for a House seat. Patrick Henry had Madison’s congressional district gerrymandered to include as many anti-Federalist areas as possible, then recruited a rising young starï¿½James Monroeï¿½to run for the seat.

Monroe campaigned as a champion for a bill of rights. Madison had previously been opposed to a bill of rights, but it was not a popular view. Cognitive dissonance set in, and Madison persuaded himself that he had only been opposed to a bill of rights prior to ratification. He promised the electorate he would support adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.

Madison won the election, and he went to Congress politically committed to supporting a bill of rights. When he drafted that document, he included a provision that with minor modifications became what is now the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

In his 99-page article, Professor Bogus argues that the evidenceï¿½including an analysis of Madison’s original language, and an understanding of how he and other founders drew on England’s Declaration of Rightsï¿½strongly suggests that Madison wrote this provision for the specific purpose of assuring his constituency that Congress could not use its newly acquired power to deprive the states of an armed militia. Madison’s concern, Professor Bogus argues, was not hunting, self-defense, national defense, or resistance to governmental tyrannyï¿½but slave control.

The “hidden history” of the Second Amendment is important for two reasons. First, it supports the view that the amendment does not grant individuals a right to keep and bear arms for their own purposes; rather it only protects the right to bear arms within the militia, as defined within the main body of the Constitution, under the joint control of the federal and state governments. At the time, the southern states extensively regulated their militias and prescribed their slave control responsibilities. Second, the hidden history is important because it fundamentally changes how we think about the right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment takes on an entirely different complexion when instead of being symbolized by a musket in the hands of the minutemen, it is associated with a musket in the hands of the slave holder.http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

With all this interesting discussion, I would like to remind everyone that although people rarely skimp on hunting weapon safety, do not overlook the other basics.

Every year, hundreds of people are injured or die from tree-stand accidents. They are usually injured from the fall, and if immobilized, they can die from hypothermia. The accident rate from tree-stands is ten times worse than every other cause of death or injury from hunting.

That said, tree-stands are very good places to hunt from for several reasons: First, you get excellent visibility of the game from a wide angle. Proper identification and selection of game is key and a tree stand can help a great deal. Second, if you miss, or your bullet, arrow, or shot exits the game; it should be aimed downward, so it isn’t likely to go far.

If you choose to use a tree stand, study the safety equipment and PLEASE USE IT PROPERLY.

There is one thing that non-hunters should be aware of during hunting season: Wear something in fluorescent orange. It’s not just for hunters –it’s for everyone! Hunters these days are very cautious to identify their game and to make a clean shot. However, accidents can happen. Even a hat is enough to clearly warn hunters that you’re a human, not a deer.

Finally, save the drinks for swapping stories at the campfire. Maybe Dick Cheney is bad-ass enough to get a lawyer to apologize for getting shot by him, but you probably aren’t.

I think the use of tree stands should be limited to black powder and bow hunters. Using a tree stand with modern firearms is not fair chase. The deer don’t look up and the scent is dispersed. The deer come so close that you can get a clean kill with open sights.

What does “fair” have to do with it? In my neck of the woods, (SE Mass.) there are usually more deer around than anyone knows what to do with. Esing lights and drives of more than ten people are probably more of an issue than stands.

Anyway, there are a lot of deer and a lot of people in basically semi-suburban settings. Getting yourself 500 feet from an occupied dwelling or road can be a challenge, as the deer are often in just those areas, eating shrubs, bedding down etc.

Perhaps you should learn how to read. Massachusetts doesn’t have a modern firearm season because the state is too densely populated to use a high powered rifle. Shotguns are the only modern firearms that can be used and the season is only a week long. Given ignorance shown in your post I doubt you have ever hunted.

While I have spent a lot of time out west I don’t live there. However, I invite you to drive out and play frogger with antelope, mule dear, big horn, elk and moose.

Grey Man: unless you are living off the land you are not dependent on hunting for food. You are a slob hunter who gives the sport a bad name.

The importance of mentoring cannot be over stressed for new hunters. If you are starting out, no matter what age, find someone experienced who is willing to take you with them. There is a lot less frustration this way, and a much shorter learning curve.

I started my video-game addicted son hunting at age 13. It is now one of the few ways I can lure him outdoors.

Young fellow out here brought down a four point spike with one hit from his Suzuki motorcycle, it was a glancing blow and he was able to maintain lane and control even though the bike was bent.
As he stood there he said, second one this month, I need to sell my rifle and buy another Bike.